9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Can cognizance of an offence punishable u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the 15-day period stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque u/s 138(c) of the Act? 2. If the answer to the first question is negative, can the complainant be permitted to present the complaint again notwithstanding the expiry of the one-month period stipulated u/s 142(b) for filing such a complaint? Summary: Issue 1: Cognizance of Offence u/s 138 Before Expiry of 15-Day Notice Period The Supreme Court examined whether a complaint filed before the expiry of the 15-day notice period stipulated u/s 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be a basis for taking cognizance of an offence. The factual backdrop involved the appellant filing a complaint u/s 138 against the respondent for dishonoured cheques. The complaint was filed before the expiry of the 15-day notice period, but the Magistrate took cognizance after the period had expired. The High Court quashed the complaint as premature. The Court emphasized that u/s 138, three conditions must be satisfied before the dishonour of a cheque constitutes an offence: (1) the cheque must be presented within six months, (2) a demand for payment must be made within 30 days of receiving information about the dishonour, and (3) the drawer must fail to pay within 15 days of receiving the notice. A complaint filed before the expiry of the 15-day period is premature and not maintainable. The Court noted that the Magistrate took cognizance after the 15-day period had expired, but the complaint was still premature when filed. Issue 2: Re-Presentation of Complaint After Expiry of One-Month Period u/s 142(b) The Court addressed whether a premature complaint could be re-presented after the expiry of the one-month period stipulated u/s 142(b). The Court referred to conflicting judicial opinions on this matter. In Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani, the Court held that a complaint filed before the expiry of the 15-day period could be the basis for cognizance if taken after the period expired. However, in Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy Private Limited v. Llyod Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund, the Court held that strict compliance with the notice period is required. The Court noted the split in judicial opinion among various High Courts, with some holding that a premature complaint is invalid and others allowing cognizance if taken after the expiry of the notice period. The Court highlighted the need for authoritative resolution of this conflict. Conclusion: The Supreme Court referred the two questions to a three-Judge Bench for authoritative resolution, emphasizing the need to address whether a premature complaint can be the basis for cognizance and whether such a complaint can be re-presented after the expiry of the one-month period u/s 142(b). The Registry was directed to place the file before the Chief Justice for the constitution of an appropriate Bench.
|
